Lee Chalmers2015-03-03T17:47:41-05:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=lee-chalmersCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Lee ChalmersGood old fashioned elbow grease.Hate Crime Is Only Funny When It's About Womentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27960132013-03-03T19:00:00-05:002013-05-03T05:12:01-04:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-chalmers/
"We have been informed of the fact that we were selling an offensive T-shirt primarily in the UK. This has been immediately deleted as it was and had been automatically generated using a scripted computer process running against 100s of thousands of dictionary words".

So far so good. Twitter then looked closer at Amazon and found t-shirts with the slogan 'Statistically 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape' supplied by seller CharGrilled.

Even funnier right? Amazon were quick to remove both rape t-shirts and most people thought that was the end of the story. However, they are still selling t-shirts that have the slogans "Keep Calm and Cut Her" and "Keep Calm and Knife Her" and a whole host more, again supplied by Solid Gold Bomb.

Is this just random algorithm or something more sinister? If it was random surely you would expect to see all the same verbs applied on the 'Keep Calm and ... Him' t-shirts, right?

No, because there are no 'Keep Calm and .... Him' t-shirts. This particular joke is reserved for women. Why is that? This must have been a decision made when a human being was programming the algorithm in the first place. Why is 'Keep Calm and Knife Her' a funny t-shirt while 'Keep Calm and Knife Him' is not?

You also don't see t-shirts bearing the phrase 'Keep Calm and lynch them' or 'Keep Calm and gas them'. Why not? Surely if the random word generating story is true we should see all these options? Imagine the public reaction to those items of clothing. We'd be utterly shocked and appalled and demand they were taken down. The reason they are not up there in the first place is because the people making choices about what words to combine know that, they know that racism and anti-Semitism are not funny and not acceptable. They do not seem to know that sexism and rape culture are not funny.

This is the problem. As some one put it on twitter "Hate crime is only funny when it's about women". We still live in a culture where slogans like this can be sold on the assumption that no one will bat an eye. This is rape culture. This is patriarchy.

It's good news that Amazon are taking action to remove these items. The clothing companies need to have a word with themselves and investigate what culture they have that allows these 'jokes' to slip through. The press also needs to look closer at what passes for excuses. The algorithm story alone doesn't stack up. Will this become the new excuse, in place of 'It's just banter!' when horrendous sexist and misogynistic comments are made in public? How come, since the eating of the apple, it's never men's fault.]]>No Women Bishops, No Automatic Seats in the House of Lordstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21703892012-11-21T09:05:49-05:002013-01-21T05:12:01-05:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-chalmers/
What doesn't work in a modern democracy such as the United Kingdom's, is that seats in the House of Lords, which are given to Church of England bishops, will remain solely for men. Women cannot hold those seats, cannot participate in second chamber legislation in this country whilst representing the Church of England.

However you feel about the question of there being seats in the House of Lords for bishops at all, it is clear that there being legislative seats reserved for men only is an anathema to British equality laws and plain, good sense in this day and age. Britain champions democracy and equality. It funds and fights all over the world for the right of men and women to have political representation.

It is simply unjust and, dare I say it, shameful, for us to be stuck in a situation in 2012 where we are allocating legislative seats in our second chamber for men only. Imagine the national and international reaction if these were seats for white people only.

The majority of the Church of England and indeed the bishops themselves are in agreement that women should be able to be bishops. If they had passed the required two thirds vote threshold, we would have one day seen women taking up the House of Lords places. Now that their internal mechanism has failed to produce an outcome in line with the spirit of equality law we must address this untenable situation in another way.

Today a petition was set up asking the government to remove the automatic right for the bishops to have seats in the House of Lords. If it reaches 100,000 signatures it may be discussed in the House of Commons. Though the church has every right to conduct itself as it wishes, it should understand there will be an impact on its role in larger society if it chooses a path so far from the rest of the nation.

"We call on the Govt to remove the right of the Church of England to have automatic seats in the House of Lords, in line with its commitments to equality and non-discrimination, set out in the Equality Act (2010) and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)"]]>Diversity in the Reformed House of Lordstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9682932011-09-18T06:46:35-04:002011-11-18T05:12:02-05:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-chalmers/
The Lib Dems favour a fully elected second chamber, a substantial change from the entirely appointed system we currently have, a system which has produced only 20% female members of the House of Lords. Given the real possibility for reform of the second chamber two Liberal Democrat members, Dinti Batstone and Jo Shaw, decided to put gender balance at the heart of the Lib Dems policy.

Jo Shaw says:

"House of Lords reform offers a once in lifetime opportunity to turn the father of discrimination into the mother of all parliaments. If we don't seize this chance to bring about gender balance, when will we?"

i) ensure the reformed House begins its mandate with in-built gender balance
ii) pilot modern flexible working practices in the reformed House
iii) ensure any further interim appointments mitigate, rather than perpetuate, the current gender imbalance, and, if an appointed element is retained,
iv) press for a transparent skills and competency based approach to new appointments."

This is a bold move from the Liberal Democrats, not particularly known for their gender balance. Only seven of their tiny number of 59 MPs are women. The party has tried to increase the percentage of female MPs through training, mentoring and placing women in 50% of the safest seats the Lib Dems have, all to no avail. Finally they are starting to realize that embracing a more substantial measure or quota system is going to be what it takes.

"In an ideal world we wouldn't need these kinds of measures. But with just 12% women in our House of Commons parliamentary group, Liberal Democrats urgently need a gender game-changer at Westminster."

There seems to be more appetite for interventions of this sort from within the party. At a Guardian fringe event on Monday, Paddy Ashdown stated his support for all-women shortlists if the new Leadership Programme didn't deliver gender balance in the House of Commons election. Though the party almost booed when he said it, I can see this having to happen in the not too distant future and the party will have to ask itself if it wants to see diversity in parliament more than it wants to hold onto an impractical ideal.

Regarding the House of Lords reform proposals, if implemented, these changes could be radical for the Lib Dems and the country, particularly if the House of Lords can lead the way on piloting 'family friendly' policies, like job sharing. Dinti Batstone says:

"Parliamentary job-sharing is about empowering people to participate in politics in a way that fits the reality of their lives- what could be more liberal and democratic than that? The Westminster village has been guilty of breathtaking double standards in mandating flexible working for other people's workplaces while failing to practice what it preaches".

Ms Batstone has led the way in the party for job sharing, having proposed it for several years and hosting a successful fringe event this conference with Working Families and The Fawcett Society. Far from being a pie in the sky proposal, now that conference has passed the amendment to the motion, we might see the Liberal Democrats leading the way on something that could potentially be taken on by the House of Commons, making the job of MP that much more appealing to parents and people with caring responsibilities.

Jo Shaw and Dinti Batstone deserve credit for presenting these measures in a way that the party batted through without the blink of an eyelid. Let's see what it will take to ensure that the proposals are implemented.
]]>Why we Should be a bit More like Louise Menschtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9134762011-07-29T19:00:00-04:002011-09-28T05:12:01-04:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-chalmers/dug around into Conservative MP Louise Menschs past and discovered, shock horror, that she 'probably' took some drugs at a nightclub when she was in her twenties. Why this is news is frankly beyond me but why this has come out now, is not. The press are doing their thing, taking on someone that has taken them on. The 'probably' is a bit of a give away. There are lots of 'probablys' floating around the News of the World scandal. True or not, a 'probably' can hurt.

In the case of Louise Mensch I doubt it will hurt that much for that long because she had the good sense to own up to it in a way that takes the sting out of it. Obama did the same when he was accused of taking drugs in his youth. Lots of people take drugs in their youth and some into their older youth so it's not the vote loser that people may assume it is. Not that I'm going to necessarily talk about that. What I am interested in is the effect that this sort of press coverage has on people who might have been considering becoming an MP.

My friends tell me that no sane person wants to be an MP in this country and I have to say, there is some sense to that claim. The British public really doesn't like it's elected representatives. MPs are the second least trusted group of people in the country, just slightly more than journalists, which in this day and age is really saying something. (Not all journalists are bad, I know, I know). Who in their right mind would want to play a role that is this hated?

This already stops people from stepping forward into public leadership but there is another factor. When I ask women, specifically, to come forward to stand as MPs lots of them say no, never in a million years and refer to the treatment that they might expect from the press, treatment a lot like Louise Mensch is experiencing. They worry about their past and how that might impact on their families. It takes a brave woman to want to air her dirty laundry in public.
We know that female politicians get treated differently from male politicians in scandals. Remember when Liz Truss, Tory hopeful was deselected from running for Parliament after having an affair? Some might think this was an appropriate response from the party but you only have to look at the fact it was a Tory MP she had the affair with, who quite happily kept his place. Is there a double standard? Yes indeed.

Good on Lousie Mensch. She's essentially saying, 'Yes I've had a life. So what?'. I agree. Isn't that what we want? To elect people to lead us who have lived? People that have had jobs outside of politics, who know what it is to battle with life, those that have experienced money worries, maybe even battled with addiction. People who know how relationships can go wrong and the work needed to keep them going. People that have allowed themselves to veer from the carefully crafted story of who and what a politician is, a story that can only end in disappointment for the voters because we are all human, full of fragilities and vulnerabilities. It's a sham to pretend otherwise.

Lets select and elect more human beings please. Let's even encourage our friends and relatives to stand for public office. You know the saying, decisions are made by those that show up. And finally let's not sit quietly as the press dig around in peoples lives, bringing up stuff that frankly just doesn't matter.
]]>The UK Doesn't Need a Minister for Womentag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8994732011-07-14T21:02:20-04:002011-09-13T05:12:02-04:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-chalmers/
Firstly, there is no correlative Minster for Men. The reason being most men would find the very concept bizarre. What sense does a Minister for Men make when the very category of men is so wide and diverse? What on earth would a Minster for Men do, what purpose would he serve? Aren't men's interests already covered by the departments that deal with the economy, education, defence, energy, transport, etc? Yes of course they are. And we have a range of political parties that men can chose from in order to express their particularly nuanced view on each of these issues. The notion of having a Minister for Men over and above this is redundant.

So why does this common sense not apply when we are dealing with the female of the species? The category 'women' is in fact larger, when seen purely in numbers, due to women comprising the majority of the population. There is a stunning range and diversity of women; old, young, tall, short, intelligent, not, right wing women, left wing women, Lib Dem women, apolitical women, to name a few. In fact in the UK women even make up the majority of graduates so we can't say they lack diversity in academic interest. So why a Minster for Women?

The answer can be found by looking in two places. Firstly, as feminists have noticed, when there are no women in positions of power the needs of women get overlooked. They have argued that we need someone specifically tasked with paying attention to these issues to ensure that resources get adequately channelled to support these needs. There is some truth to this as it applies to women qua women (rape centres and battered women shelters for example) but for the most part what they are really pointing to is women as mothers. And herein lies the problem.

Not all women are mothers but we've been solely defined by that role for so long that culture still can't conceive of us in any other way. There are substantial issues faced by mothers in our society such as access to childcare, an ability to return to work after childbirth, etc. But these issues are parental issues not women's issues. Anyone taking time out to care for children will face these challenges and increasingly our men have a desire to step into this role. They often find that they can't because parenting is largely still seen as women's work. Just look at the disparity between maternity and paternity leave. It tells men that society does not condone them being at home with their children.

If we want to open up the home to more men, to allow them to participate in the raising of their children, which allows women to give up some of the burden of childcare so they can participate in business and politics, we need to move these 'issues' from the purview of the Minister for Women and into a department that deals with parenting. Get men involved because when we apply the tag 'women's issues', we exclude them.

The second place we can look to see why a Minister for Women is a dumb idea is in the concept of in-groups and out-groups. Those working in the area of diversity and inclusion are all too aware of the inevitable forces of power dynamics. There are in-groups and out-groups everywhere we look and we are all part of them. In government and business, in most positions of power in fact, men are the in-group and women the out-group. (It's actually white men that are the in-group but that's another post.)

The in-group, whatever demographic holds the power, has a set of norms which it adheres to and a set of nuanced distinctions it understands. There is meaning conveyed in the colour and pattern of an old school tie, a crest pinkie ring, an accent. These norms need not be voiced but the in-group understands them only too well and takes action based upon them.

The in-group doesn't have the same level of distinctions with regard to the out-group. They think the out-group are all the same. They can't read the out-group and see the complexity and range that exists within it, hence the stereotyping that occurs around race, gender, class and religion. 'All Muslims are..." "The Tories are all evil", etc. It's wrong and it's explainable by in and out-group dynamics. We all make judgements based on our lack of distinctions of groups that are 'other' from us.

Whilst that might be understandable in our private lives it's certainly not acceptable that it's enshrined in our government and that is just what is happening when we appoint a Minister for Women. The in-group (men) assume that all the full range and diversity of the needs of women can be covered by this role because they have no sense of what is actually contained in the category. Most so called 'women's issues' could be covered by other departments. And they should be, with powerful, political women in those departments alongside men ensuring that resources are allocated.

What does need to be addressed in our society though, is the status of women. Women are still not held as equals to men, in any area. The pay gap reflects this, as does the lack of TV coverage of women's sport and the fact that female politicians clothes are reported on more often that the contents of their minds. These things all point to the lack of understanding of the distinctions in the category 'women' and the status that is given to it. This is partly because we have been solely identified with being mothers for so long that the public world still does not know how to recognise and value the contribution of women as people.

Of course some may suggest that if we get rid of the Minster for Women role we will be putting the course of women's empowerment back 20 years. Possibly, unless we replace it with the role such as the one they have in Canada and Australia: a Minister for the Status of Women. This Minister could be male or female, as there are plenty of men interested in increasing the status of women. Under a banner like this all people could participate; together we could make a difference and work to bring the talents of women to the political and business table. This would take a radical shift in thinking on behalf of government, moving from seeing women as a special interest group (the women's vote?) to being another category of person, capable of intellectual rigour, creativity, public service as well as childbirth. Bring on a Minister who can usher in the time of women as human beings, in all their complexity.

]]>Women Are to Blame For the Ills of Societytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8900272011-07-14T01:17:57-04:002011-09-12T05:12:01-04:00Lee Chalmershttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-chalmers/Peter Oborne was pointing to the decline of the nuclear family and the impact that has on care for the elderly. He argued that the welfare state was originally designed to supplement the care and support already given to the needy by the family, not to replace it. He portrayed a strong family, which felt responsible for the future of itself in a largely self-contained way, not seeing state support as the default option. In the article he refers to the crucial role that women play in this traditional family situation:

"And so it goes on - the daughter's labours are in a hundred little ways shared with the older woman whose days of child-bearing (but not of child-rearing) are over. When the time comes for the mother to need assistance, the daughter reciprocates by returning the care she has herself received."

This nod to the place of women chimes with the comments made recently by David Willetts, Conservative universities minister about the impact of feminism on the employment opportunities available to men. The Guardian reported:

"Willetts said feminism was probably the "single biggest factor" for the lack of social mobility in Britain, because women who would otherwise have been housewives had taken university places and well-paid jobs that could have gone to ambitious working-class men."

Of course women were deeply offended by these words, understandably so but, the fact of the matter is, Oborne and Willetts are right. Women's actions have changed the nature of family life and the nature of the job market for men and we all know it. Women stepping outside the home, away from the traditional roles which have been their only option for hundreds, if not thousands of years, has indeed changed everything. How could it not? Men and women's futures are intertwined. They are so connected that when one gender shifts its orientation to life, claims another role, this cannot but help impact the life, opportunities and role of the other.

Men left Platos cave years ago, to forge a new future in culture but women didn't go with them. Men have been free to create, to discover, to adventure, to go into politics and business largely because they didn't have to bear and raise children. Women were, until very recently indeed, totally and utterly defined by that role. Why bother educating women if you believe their real value in society is the production of children? It makes sense when seen from that perspective. In some parts of the world it's still seen from that perspective.

But the western cultural revolution of the 1960's and 1970's changed all that. Eve decided to eat from the tree of knowledge herself and now women are revelling in their education. New research shows that 43% of educated western Gen X women (aged between 33 and 46) have opted to be childfree. In a world that gives very little status and absolutely no financial reward to having children, this is a rational choice for a person to make. Rational when viewed from the level of the individual, the level we value in western culture, but utterly catastrophic for the species.

The political right understand this. They see that the writing is on the wall for humanity if women are not willing to assume their place as the mothers of us all. And this is problematic because women are not going to quietly go back to this life of unpaid, low status, grindingly hard work. Society cannot go back, we can only go forward. We evolve or die.

Rather than wishing for what has come before we need to ask hard questions of ourselves and create something new. What structures do we need to create that allow women to contribute to society with their brains as well as their wombs? If the majority of our graduates are now women and we want that talent in our businesses and political parties, are we willing to change how we work in order to allow them to contribute whilst ensuring that we still have enough children? These are not just questions for women, these are questions for all of us.

Faced with the complexity of these challenges it's understandably easier to say 'let the women stay at home and raise children.' Easier to wish for what worked so well for society before. And this is not about men dictating the terms, it's easier for women to say this too. It's been our role for so long that we are compelled to it. We often unthinkingly slide into this function and then lead lives of confused desperation because we haven't yet figured out how to do it differently.

Women are capable of more than childrearing, difficult and valuable as that is, and culture needs us to give more, it needs our intellectual contribution as truly equal partners to men. The challenges we face in the future such as peak oil, population aging, water shortages, require the best minds of our generation and those may be sitting in female bodies. Do we really want to ignore that potential contribution and encourage women to go back home? I think quite the opposite, we should be encouraging women to take their place in business and politics and solve the problem of making life more family friendly, so both men and women can share life in both the private and the public worlds.

Does this mean, as Willetts suggests, that we will take men's jobs? Yes and no. Being in the job market means we will take jobs but they are in no sense men's anymore. That ship has sailed. We are facing a reconstruction of our society on the scale of that required when we disallowed that other source of unpaid work, slaves. I'm sure there were those arguing for the slaves to go back to work, servitude being in some way seen as their natural place. But we evolved, both morally and structurally. We need to do the same again. Are we ready?
]]>